The Labor Movement in France. (1909)

From the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Syndicalist and Anti-Militarist wins brought to declare for political action.

Translated from Proletary (Russian) by J. Kresswell and adapted from the Weekly People (New York).

__________

The late October, 1908, convention of the United Socialist Party and the General Confederation of Labor in France will undoubtedly serve as a turning point in the history of the French labor movement. The vacillating course and the somersaults, from “opportunistic” Socialism to “revolutionary anarcho-syndicalism” are destined to be relics of the past.

The tactics of the French proletariat, are becoming more and more similar to those of Germany, Austria and Scandinavia.

By attaching the “Socialist” Millerand to the Cabinet of the clever and masterful Waldeck-Rousseau, the French bourgeoisie succeeded in temporarily breaking down the ranks of the labor organisations. At the head of the General Confederation of Labor at that time were the reformers of the English trade unionist type, among whom were active adherents of Jaures’ theory of the co-operation of the classes. Geraud, the then secretary of the Confederation, used to support in the Federation Millerand, who opened wide the treasury of the ministry of Commerce to the labor syndicates. In those days the Confederation used to give banquets in honor of Millerand, and radical municipalities used to give to labor unions free lyceums and pecuniary subsidies. Consequently the demoralisation of labor organisations became so great that nothing better seemed to remain to honest Socialists but to join the anarcho-syndicalists in their conflict with the reformers.

In Bourges the anarcho-syndicalists, thanks to the active co-operation of the Guesdists trade unions, captured temporarily the G.C. of L. and became the moving spirits in theory and practice in the French labor movement. The reformers also prepared a fine field for anarcho-syndicalists. The hostility to political action which seized the laboring masses in the rising period of neo-syndicalism, appears only as a just reaction to the excesses of the parliamentary tactics. Only four years have passed since “revolutionary” syndicalism triumphed, yet it is now passing. We limit ourselves to a short review of the evolution this syndicalism has gone through in this time.

Arming themselves at Bourges with a complele arsenal of revolutionary phrases, our syndicalists imagined that we were on the eve of the grand sunset of the capitalist world. In their inflamed imagination the first important strike became almost the beginning of the Social Revolution. The words “general strike” became a sacred commandment. The Paris Convention of 1901 even decided to form a special committee to prepare for such a strike, and the syndicalists were convinced that the day when the working class would go on strike would be the last of the bourgeois regime. Syndicalists taught the workers that high dues, rich union treasuries and numerous syndicates lead to narrow English unionism only, that strikes must always be hastily improvised, and to prepare for them long is unnecessary. The general laboring masses they considered cowardly and apathetic, and they assigned the principal role to an active and energetic minority. These agitators being in most cases at the head of syndicates in embryo, acted with surprising self-assurance, and the unsuccessful outcome of strikes never worried them. Strikes in their eyes always served as “revolutionary gymnastics.”

With such views the syndicalists prepared themselves for the first decisive battle, which they were to give to “capital” on May 1st, 1906, in order to gain the eight hour day. Their impressive revolutionary proclamations and the previously raised hue and cry momentarily scared the French bourgeoisie. The radical ministry concentrated in proletarian centres enormous military forces. The French workingmen, without a sou in their union treasuries, without strong syndicates, temporarily influenced by the revolutionary phraseology of the demagogues, stumbled not only over the more perfectly organised capital, but also upon the government’s army. The result was the complete defeat of the workers. A great number of unions became almost wholly demoralised and disbanded. Others lost considerable of their membership—the metal workers, for instance, more than a third. The federation of pressmen, whose caution the syndicalists ridiculed and condemned, was the only one to carry on a successful struggle. This union succeeded in gaining a nine-hour day in a considerable part of France. How powerful was the blow delivered to the working class by this inflated first of May movement may be judged from the fact that the number of successful strikes for this year reached only 7 per cent., while the average for the previous ten years was 14 per cent. The Confederation of Labor, which, according to Pouget, had 250 thousand members in 1903, had at the convention of Amiens four years later only 203 thousand.

Far poorer results were shown from syndicalist practice the last two years, which even the revolutionary leaders, Pouget and Griffeulhes confess. At the same time the bourgeoisie had not remained idle. During one year the numbers in employers’ associations increased from 268 thousand to 315 thousand, a gain of 18 per cent. A more rapid progress is shown in the class-conscious organisation of capital in 1907. In the metallurgical, electrical, automobile, glass and chemical industries a series of trusts were formed almost embracing all the national industries. The league of merchants and shopkeepers alone, which was shortly formed to combat the Sunday rest idea, counts 100 thousand members. To these well organised forces of capital the Confederation of Labor proposed to give battle with the small undisciplined and provisionless army, composing only 27 per cent, of France’s working population, and only one-third of the organised labor of the land.

The revolutionary syndicalists, who during six years held noisy harangues about a general strike, understood the necessity of large and powerful organisations, when their attempt to call a general strike during the May agitation and the events at Draveil-Vigneux resulted in complete defeat. These events conclusively proved that their practical influence upon organised labor was absolutely nil. Pouget, the real head of the revolutionary syndicalists, wrote at the end of June in the Voice of the People:

“Unfortunately it must be acknowledged that if the idea of the general strike has made great theoretical gains in France, in practice we are behind even the Italian proletariat. The cause of this appears to be the state of illusion of the workers. To the practical syndicalists the lessons of the past have not been in vain, many of them have found out the errors of the past.” Griffeulhes, sec. cf the Confederation, confessed to the editor of L’Humanite that the empty revolutionary phraseology scared away the laboring masses, especially in the provinces, and instilled distrust in the trade unions. He added that what was wanted was less noise and more organisation work. Luke, the temporary secretary of the Confederation, wrote still more moderately

“What the proletariat wants are real results, i.e., real reforms. And it has come to the conclusion that for the realisation and preservation of such reforms strong organisations are absolutely necessary.”

The same revolutionary experience has been made by other “revolutionary” syndicates. They have lost the sarcastic and nagging tone in which they used to attack contemporary class-conscious proletarian organisations of Western Europe. As a result the majority of the trade unions established high membership dues. Their contempt for the necessity of numerous and powerful syndicates has vanished and such hot heads as the secretary of the metal workers’ union, advises the workers to carefully prepare for each strike and to survey the field of battle beforehand. A few ultra-syndicalists still pin their faith to “revolutionary manoeuvres.” But from the debates at Marseilles it is clearly seen how quickly the French proletariat is freeing itself from the guardianship of neo-syndicalism. 

In those debates no mention was even made of a general strike. The responsibility for the August 3rd events was by all present placed upon the government’s shoulders, but if the whole administration of the Confederation had not at that moment been behind prison bars, the “prehistoric” tactics of the “revolutionary” syndicalists would have been severely condemned there and then.

Latopy, another secretary of the metal worker’s union and a good “revolutionary” syndicalist, expressed himself thusly :

“I would like to know whether we will continue to pass resolutions, which in the future we are unable to carry out or defend. … I would that henceforth we shouldn’t enter the battlefield for the pleasure and vanity of a few leaders, who themselves remain in the security of their homes.”

This arrow was intended for the theoreticians and a few of the remaining supporters of syndicalism.

The syndicalists had to beat a retreat, as well in questions of anti-militarism and of the international trades union secretariat. At Amiens the syndicalists voted for the ultra-revolutionary resolution of Yvetot, binding them to carry on a strong anti-militarist and “anti-patriotic” propaganda, and at Marseilles, Marrheim, the prime mover of this resolution, brought forth another, in which there was not a word about “anti-militarism” or “anti-patriotism.” At Amiens the Confederation resolved to participate in the international conferences of trades union secretaries only under the condition that “anti-militarism” and the “general strike” should be deliberated. At Marseilles they were satisfied with a very moderate request: the international secretariat to be required to put on the order of the day the question of call for the convention of the international trades unions.

It is true that the “revolutionary” syndicalists have as yet preserved their majority in the central organisations, but this is because of the peculiar mode of representation at conventions, where every section of the syndicate has one vote, no matter what its numerical strength. Thus the produce union with 3 thousand members had 39 votes at Marseilles, while the miners’ union, numbering 30 thousand, had only 35. The weaker unions occupied in small production, were in fact rulers of these conventions. This is the real reason of the neglect of the majority of organised labor to obey the resolutions passed by a ficticious majority of delegates. No wonder the “revolutionary” syndicalists oppose with might and main a more just and proportional representation, for on the day of such realisation there will appear, at the head of those organisations, pure and simple reformers instead of reformers turned inside-out.

At Lyons, where the question of proportional representation was first raised, only five per cent. of the delegates present were in favour. At Montpelier this number rose to sixteen per cent., at Bourges to twenty-six per cent., and at Marseilles to thirty-four per cent., which, according to the minutest calculations, represents 160 thousand workers out of the total 170 in the Confederation. In fact, even now the majority of the trades unions, those who consider themselves “revolutionary,” do not in their practice differ from the reformers.

(To be concluded)

The Tyranny of Usury. (1909)

Book Review from the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Tyranny of Usury; A Plea for the Nationalisation of Exchanges,  by John McLachlan. Manchester, Leventhulme. 1d.

Superstition dies hard. Driven from the human mind on the religious side it endeavours to find entry on another, and no subject has brought forward so many cranks, faddists and maniacs as the subject of the above pamphlet if we except religion.

The author, who, by his praise of Keir Hardie, is probably a member of the I.L.P., first defines usury as the total surplus taken by the capitalist class, and then narrows it down to the ordinary definition of interest, or the amount charged for the use of money or forms of credit. By a shuffling of these two definitions, when it suits him, he is able to skim over awkward points and give his case some small appearance of being worth consideration.

An attempt is first made to explain how it is that poverty exists. “Socialists usually lay stress upon Private Monopoly of Production and Distribution as the cause. But while this later assumption (?) is undoubtedly ultimately a true one, it is daily being borne in upon us that PRIVATE MONOPOLY OF EXCHANGE is proximately the cause of Unemployment (and, of course, of Poverty) through the operation of those commercial crises which have exercised until now the wit of capitalist apologists to explain”.

What causes the crisis? The author gives the following description of a crisis while deferring the explanation of how it arises.

“On a given day let us assume, trade and commerce are exceedingly brisk . . . All is well – apparently. Suddenly the unthinking merchant discovers a difficulty in obtaining credit. Bankers call in their loans, refuse renewals, and decline to discount even the best paper except at high rates, credit being generally refused”. The ordinary features of a crisis are then detailed. The “catastrophic” and “dogmatic” economists who used to say that the cause was overproduction are summarily dismissed as “antiquated”. This sort of thing may have been the cause early in the nineteenth century, but is utterly fallacious to-day.

A so-called review of the crises of the nineteenth century is then given in an attempt to show that they were due to financial causes, and the following “general rules” are deduced.

“(1) Unemployment and trade depression always succeed a Credit stringency.

“(2) Financial Crises and Unemployment are quite possible as cause and effect without the additional factor of over-production which was formerly a feature of these crises.

“(3) An increase in the currency always lessens the immediate strain upon the national credit”.

All this leaves one quite in the dark as to why “the unthinking merchant discovers a difficulty in obtaining credit” and what it is that causes a “credit stringency”. But the next chapter, headed “The Fallacy of the Gold Standard”, attempts to explain the position gold occupies in the settlement of debts, and says, “It is legally enacted, we repeat, that debts must be paid in Gold on demand”. A comparison is given between the liabilities of the banks and the gold in circulation, and the question is asked, “Why is our gold currency not larger? Ah! there’s the rub! If our currency were enlarged to the extent of giving representation to everything considered as negotiable the People would be freed from the obligation of paying for the money they use.”

Lucien Saniel, in his introduction to the American edition of Marx’s Value, Price and Profit has pointed out the dangerous misleading given to the working class by the “revolutionary sounding but intensely bourgeois sophism of the Anarchist Proudhon”, and this warning applies with full force here. Further on we shall show the similarity of McLachlan’s and Proudhon’s positions. Note the portion of the above quotation from pamphlet italicised by the author. Who are the people who find a difficulty in “paying for the money they use”? Not the working class in any sense of the word. Not the large capitalists, for they control the powers of government and have a currency suitable to their interests. There is left the small capitalist and shopkeeping section, who, fond of calling themselves the “middle” class, find themselves unable to hold their own positions against the giant production and “chain store” system of distribution that is crushing them out in all directions. Hence this howl for an extension of “credits” and the introduction of “cheap” money for the purpose of paying their debts.

It is one of the stock lies of the money cranks to say that all exchange is a question of creditor and debtor and that all debts must be paid in gold. An exchange means to pass over one thing for another. Whether the things exchanged are directly use-values or not does not affect the point. If the commodity gold is given for the commodity food then an exchange has taken place, but there is no creditor or debtor. A debt only exists when a promise to pay in the future has been made. In the absence of any specific statement to the contrary, and only in this case, the creditor can demand payment in gold or legal tender.

Moreover, the removal of this obligation would not alter the facts of the case one atom. If the currency gave representation to all things considered negotiable, where is the debtor to obtain this currency when his debts fall due? From the State bank, it may be answered. How will the bank advance the money? Upon the negotiability – that is, the saleability – of the debtor’s things. But that is exactly what applies to-day, and it is only when his goods are unsaleable that he fails to pay his debts. In other words, it is because of the industrial crisis or depression that we have “Credit stringency” in various directions. A striking illustration of this “stringency” fallacy was shown a little time ago when the L.C.C. floated the last loan. The money market was “tight” and business bad, yet the amount required was subscribed nearly forty times over. In other words this was a proof that bad trade caused the “stringency”, and not the absence of currency, of which there were large amounts seeking sound investment. It is a well known fact that when trade is bad, or a crisis is upon us, there is more currency circulating than when trade is good. According to Mr. McLachlan’s third general rule, this should lessen the strain. Therefore, the crisis should bring its own cure! Such is one of the absurdities these cranks land themselves into.

In the section dealing with the Clearing House the author objects to the “commission” levied upon the paper transactions there recorded, and then says that this “the toll paid by commercial men for the management of their accounts”. Why he objects to this he does not say.

In the last section on “The Nationalisation of Exchange”, the author reaches his grand panacea – and shows incidentally how superficial and shallow his knowledge is, and how easily he has been gulled by another money crank – Mr. Kitson. After stating that “to confer upon any single article the sole privilege of determining the values of all other commodities whatsoever is iniquitous”, without giving any evidence that this is done, he gives us the following gems.

“What is value? Simply an exchange relation between commodities.” Then he says “cost of production must be reckoned with in all transactions”. Here is a flat contradiction, for what has cost of production to do with the exchange relation? If it is answered that this decides the quantities in the exchange relation, he at once denies this, for in the next sentence he says “Value is determined by Supply and Demand and its relations are always changing in deference to changes in the supply and demand for commodities”. To explain this he follows the old dodge of the capitalist apologists who, as Marx has so caustically put it, always have to wander outside Capitalism in their endeavour to talk round awkward points. Mr. McLachlan therefore leaves modern society and goes to an island.

“If on an island, there existed at a given time, 6 pigs, 4 sacks of flour, 12 sacks of potatoes, and two cows, it would follow that for the time being one cow would exchange for three pigs; for two sacks of flour; or for six sacks of potatoes. And if £1,000,000 in gold were imported, 1 cow would inevitably exchange for £500,000, while potatoes would cost £166,666 13s. 4d per sack”. And if I import 10 bricks each brick will be worth £100,000! Political economy up to date. “When any increase or decrease takes place in the quantities on the market of any commodities the ratio of values (and, of course, the price) undergoes a corresponding change”.

In the above statements the immense superiority of the method of demonstration used is at once apparent. Dull, awkward things like facts, evidence, history, experience, are beneath our author’s notice, and from the higher standpoint of his “inner consciousness” he evolves the proof in the words “it would follow”. The only authority he can evoke is the “inimitable” Mr. Kitson, who says in his book A Scientific Solution of the Money Question, that the only relation between commodities is number and “this is the only expression of value possible”.

And yet a 3rd standard school boy can put a question that knocks the bottom out of the whole case. Why does a given number of one article exchange for a given number of another article? Mr. Kitson cannot tell us. His disciple says it is a question of division of the quantities existing into each other. Then how can he explain that the Statistical Abstract gives Raw Wool at 11.88d. per lb while Woollen Yarn is given at 20.54d., or nearly double the price? Divide wool into wool and the result is – wool. Yet the difference in price is 8.34d.!

Finally we have an outline of the scheme for salvation laid down.

“A municipal bank would operate in this fashion. Let us take the case of a farmer short of ready money, but with 400 acres under wheat crops, estimated to produce from four to six quarters of grain per acre. His labourers want their wages. Ordinarily a credit stringency would cripple the farmer, whose workmen would also suffer as a result, but at our Municipal Bank he could monetize his credit based on 1,600 quarters of wheat. He draws notes on the Branch Bank at Puddleton and pays his workmen therewith, the notes circulating as legal tender, and being received by tradesmen in Puddleton and elsewhere on the strength of the stamp of the Puddleton Branch Bank. Farmer Brown doesn’t pay 3½ per cent for the accommodation, either; any charge upon his loan is calculated upon the cost of maintaining the Bank, which preferably should be a charge upon the local rates. Farmer Brown simply exchanges his unknown credit for that of the Bank, which forthwith debits him with the amount of the loan, payable in a given period of time by tendering a number of notes equal in total value to the amount of his loan. And this procedure could be followed in the case of all reputable citizens, commercial and industrial houses, shopkeepers, etc.” In fact by everybody except the working class, whose “unknown credit” would fail to pass the bank test.

Passing by the numerous assumptions with which the above quotation bristles, the general position is that laid down by John Gray, afterwards plagiarised by Proudhon and crushingly dealt with by Marx in Poverty of Philosophy and The Critique of Political Economy. How a tradesman would be better off in having to accept a note instead of gold for his goods it would be difficult to explain; while the experience of the French Assignats shows the folly of trying to pay debts with paper.

The quotation assumes sound security in one part and denies it in another. If the Bank issues notes upon security of an exchangeable value, then, as shown by the L.C.C. loan, there is plenty of money awaiting that use now. If the farmer’s credit is “stringent” , that means his security is of doubtful exchange value. Then where is the soundness of the Bank?

The only point that might be said is the one that Farmer Brown would not pay 3½ per cent for the loan. Ignoring at this stage the question of what it would actually cost to run the Bank, we can now see the economic interest standing behind this scheme. It is to relieve the farmers, commercial men, shopkeepers etc from the burden of paying interest on their borrowed capitals. It is the attempt of the smaller section – financially speaking – of the capitalist class to increase their share of the surplus-value by cutting out one of those with whom they at present have to share that surplus, namely – the interest lord. So blatantly ignorant is the author of even the smallest conception of the working class position that he has the brass to say that “It is safe to say that the [French] Revolution of 1848 failed mainly because the insurgents neglected to capture the means of Exchange. The breakdown of the Commune was due, too, largely to the financial operations directed against it”. Shades of Thiers and Gallifet! What friends you have in the Anarchists and the I.L.P.!

Jack Fitzgerald

Editorial: The Miners’ Eight Hours Bill. (1909)

Editorial from the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once more the position of the S.P. is vindicated when they point out that “‘palliatives’ don’t palliate.” The first result of the passing of the Miners’ Eight Hours Bill was the threat of a general miners’ strike if the employers insisted upon the terms they laid down.

The trouble started in South Wales, probably because, as the Manchester Guardian suggests, “a large number—more than half it is said— of the men are paid by the day” in that district. Hence the shortening of the working day, if all other factors remained as before, would amount to a rise in wages for the day hands. The mine-owners however, were not prepared to allow all other factors to remain as before. They demanded first an alteration of wages. The men resisted. Then they claimed that clause 3 gave them power to extend the working day within certain limits. The clause reads :

“The eight hours per day may be extended as respects any mine on not more than sixty days in any calender year by not more than one hour a day.”

The employers demanded that this provision should be enforced, saying that its enforcement was within the owners’ option. On the other hand the miners claim that it cannot operate without their consent—a claim that the wording of the clause in no way supports. However, it has been decided to take a test case to the courts for a judgement thereon.

Then the owners claimed the right to introduce a double shift, which the men again opposed on the grounds of it being unhealthy owing to the gaseous nature of the South Wales coal. This idea was, naturally, scouted by the owners. “Perhaps, however,” says the capitalist paper quoted above, “the main root of the miners’ objection is economic—the fear that the double shift may end in lower wages. The wages of the miners depend on the price of coal, and if the double shift meant a considerable increase in output, it might involve a drop in wages without a corresponding drop in profits.”

This is certainly evidence from the enemy in support of our contention that the time occupied in fighting for these reforms is a sheer waste as the general conditions of wage slavery still remain, and the evolution of capitalistic production in economising the methods employed, more than compensate the masters for the apparent benefit conferred upon the men by such reform. On this point what is called a compromise has been effected and the miners are to have a share in deciding in every case whether the double shift is to be introduced. It may be left to the employer to see that the “share” of the men in this decision will not go against the owners’ interests.

Further evidence comes from Staffordshire, where the pit lads came out on strike because the masters wanted to reduce the meal time to an extent that meant practically working the 8 hours right off.

Here again a compromise has been effected whereby the men are to be allowed 20 minutes for their mid-day meal. If as the tale told of Gladstone relates, it is necessary to chew one’s food thirty-two times before swallowing to keep one’s digestion in order, then the miners will have to measure their mid-day meal by troy weight instead of avoirdupois to keep in health. 

For years past the miners have been asking for a legal 8 hours day. Now they have it their first actions are, in one direction to threaten, and in another to actually, strike against its effects. What stronger evidence can be given of the correctness of our position on palliatives?

The Butcher of the Commune. (1909)

From the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

“It is a lie—their Priests, their Pope,

Their Saints:—their . . all they fear or hope

Are lies, and lies …”

Had Robert Browning’s victim of the Inquisition lived in our own time she could have added “their Press” to her list of lying agents. The truth of this is never more clearly seen than on the occasion of a popular military “hero” shuffling off this mortal coil.

On July 8th, at his house in Paris, expired General the Marquis of Gallifet, Prince of Martigues, etc., at the advanced age of 79. This old Bonapartist scoundrel, referred to by capitalist journals, both French and English, as “Famous French Fighter,” “Friend of King Edward,” “Great loss to France,” etc., etc., was in reality an unscrupulous and abandoned wretch, who, by his cold-blooded murders at the time of the Commune, earned the undying hatred of all who hold dear the cause of working-class freedom.

As Socialists we cannot fail to be struck by the wonderful and significant unanimity displayed by the organs of Capital on both sides of the Channel, when estimating the dead “hero’s” character.

Thus the Daily News, peaceful persuader and mouthpiece of reform, whilst lightly touching on his “severe repression in 1871,” gave due prominence to “his services to France.” The Petit Journal of July 9th wrote as follows :

“Eccentricities of character could not justify the story of executioner in civil warfare. It is said he took a fiendish pleasure in butchering conquered federals who had fallen into his hands. No trustworthy evidence of any weight has ever come to light to support these accusations, against which he was always unwilling to defend himself; finding that, as he himself once wrote in a letter, ‘to apologise would be wanting in elegance’ !”

No trustworthy evidence !

The Commune was dead. The last barricade had been captured and its brave defenders either massacred or taken prisoners.

The special correspondent of the Daily News (how “the whirligig of time brings in his revenges”) whilst searching for appropriate “copy” amongst the barricades, had the misfortune to fall in with Gallifet’s soldiers, who, despite the fact that the pressman held a pass from the Versailles Government, forced him to join a herd of unarmed prisoners.

These poor wretches were being marched from Paris to Versailles.

The description by this eye-witness of the scenes on the road has often been quoted.

“The column of prisoners halted in the Avenue Uhrich, and was drawn up, four deep, on the footway, facing to the road. General the Marquis de Gallifet and his staff, . . . dismounted and commenced an inspection from the left of the line. Walking down slowly and eyeing the ranks, the General stopped here and there, tapping a man on the shoulder or beckoning him out from the rear ranks. In most cases without further parley, the individual thus selected was marched out into the centre of the road, where a small supplementary column was thus soon formed. . . It was evident that there was considerable room for error. A mounted officer pointed out to Genera! Gallifet a man and a woman for some particular offence. The woman, rushing out of the ranks, threw herself on her knees, and, with outstretched arms, protested her innocence in passionate terms. The General waited for a pause, and then with most impassive face and unmoved demeanour, said : ‘Madame, I have visited every theatre in Paris ; your acting will have no effect upon me’ (ce n’est pas la peine de jouer la comedie) . . It was not a good thing on that day to be noticeably taller, dirtier, cleaner, older, or uglier than one’s neighbours. One individual in particular struck me as probably owing his speedy release from the ills of this world to his having a broken nose. . . Over a hundred being thus chosen, a firing party told off, and the column resumed its march, leaving them behind. A few minutes afterwards a dropping fire in our rear commenced, and continued for over a quarter of an hour. It was the execution of these summarily convicted wretches.” Daily News, June 8th, 1871.

This description was deemed worthy of a leading article on the next day. The following is a brief abstract:

“. . For the touch of M. de Gallifet’s fingers meant death. The appearance of the unfortunate men and women who were thus singled out for execution is described as being something horrible. One already wounded, his shirt soaked with blood, sat down in the road and howled with anguish . . . others wept in silence ; two soldiers, presumed to be deserters, pale but collected, appealed to all the other prisoners as to whether they had ever seen them amongst their ranks. . . The huddled mass of corpses which was subsequently seen by several horror-stricken correspondents showed where M. le Marquis had passed.”—Daily News, June 9, 1871.

From the “Manifesto of the Working Men’s International” we take the following:

“The captured soldiers of the line were massacred in cold blood ; . . . Gallifet, the kept man of his wife, so notorious for her shameless exhibitions at the orgies of the Second Empire, boasted in a proclamation of having commanded the murder of a small troop of National Guards, with their captain and lieutenant, surprised and disarmed by his Chasseurs.”

Does the Petit Journal want any further evidence ?

Our message is to the working class. We bid them to remember that at all times the powers that be are determined to maintain their supremacy by every means in their power. If they cannot gull the workers by political cheating, lying and chicanery, they are prepared to shoot down men, women and children by thousands rather than surrender one jot or tittle of their beloved “rights of property.”

Like every other class in the course of history, the ruling class came into power by means of the command they held of armed force. When we have sifted and winnowed out the chaff of “comforts of religion,” “respect for law and order,” “adaptability.” and all the other canting phrases beloved of labour niisleaders we find that the ultimate appeal is to force. Ignorance plays a great part in helping to keep the workers in subjection, but it is by force the “super” class hold their position. We must consciously organise therefore for the capture of the armed forces in order to convert them from an instrument of oppression into an agent of emancipation. Let this “consummation devoutly to be wished” once become a fact, then those brave souls who perished in the Commune will not have died in vain.

Fritz.